Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:32:50
Message-Id: 4F9AADAE.5080105@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force by "Andreas K. Huettel"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26/04/12 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Dear all, > > I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful feature, > as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?): > > * two new files in profile directories supported, > package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force * syntax is > identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force * meaning is > identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force, except that > the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword is in > use > > Rationale: Often single features are "not ready for production > yet", but the remaining package with that feature disabled would be > a perfect candidate for stabilization. Right now this can be solved > by * masking the useflag, which then makes the feature inaccessible > even for ~arch * masking the useflag for exactly one package > revision, which is hell to maintain * or introducing different > package revisions with/without the useflag, which is also a mess.
I would think, personally, that masking the useflag on a per-package basis would be better than this new feature -- it is more work as it needs to be done for all the different ~arch packages the use flag applies to, but it would mean that when a given ~arch version bump has that feature ready one wouldn't lose the mask on the previous ~arch versions. It would also mean (i assume) that this flag would be masked if that version went stable too (although in reality I would expect this wouldn't ever occur). There are potentially a lot of package entries to manage if this were, say, a flag like 'introspection'.. however, i'm sure maintaining this could be scriptable couldn't it?
> > Where this would (have been|be) useful: * we had for a long time > different revisions of subversion with/without kde useflag * > cups-1.4 had the infamous libusb backend triggered by USE=usb * > cups-1.5 has optional systemd support via a systemd useflag, which > pulls in non-stabilized systemd as dependency... >
I'm not sure that I'm following the cups examples here. For cups-1.5 even if it were stable, if someone actually wanted to use systemd on their system and unmasked/keyworded it (while running stable everything else) I don't see why this would be an issue that would need this new masking feature (unless IUSE="+systemd", which probably shouldn't be the case anyways). Ian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk+ara4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPALZwD/bIk3GzOThs6P/2EkWn2DxvEY XHQZVUvmc1dJBERmSiIA/3saDFCoK79S8fw+2Q9Myf9Lt6PdEc4u1j48QcDf+sKW =XQ3/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies